No need. You can't distinguish between the meanings, but they are different. Can you provide such a law giver???

It's not hard at all to distinguish between the meanings, or more specifically show the correlations and similarities (since you intend to prove there is a difference). But you are skirting the question. And that still is:

Ã¢â‚¬Å“Find me evidence of a Law that wasn't given by a "Law Giver", then we can discuss the point further.Ã¢â‚¬Â

I don't believe in a need for a law giver under these circumstances if that answers your question.My point here is that scientific law is different from the legal term which must be laid down.Ã‚Â Scientific laws explain what we see.Ã‚Â

Things as simple as arithmetic operations qualify as scientific laws.

There are plenty of laws that were discovered by scientists. AmpÃƒÂ¨re's law for example. AmpÃƒÂ¨re didn't decide one day that for any closed loop path, the sum of the length elements times the magnetic field in the direction of the length element is equal to the permeability times the electric current enclosed in the loop. He didn't give us the law, he discovered it for us.

You might think it's because I don't understand something, right? Nope. When science invokes a anything can happen condition so that a "claimed" idea or theory can work. It is just like calling upon God to do it.

Example: I believe a certain thing happened. You come back and say: That cannot be because it breaks this and that law. I say: Because it was the beginning,this and that law did not apply therefore it did happen exactly the way I said.

Now what scientific rules did I apply to make my idea work? Nothing. I dismissed laws to "make" it work. Can I prove my claim that the laws did no exist? No. So what makes my claim scientifically true? Nothing. It is only a possibility that has zero evidence to back it up. One that had to invoke a situation where it could happen barring all known laws.

So basically, I cheated to make it work by calling up a different reality where laws do not exist, even though I can never prove such a time where laws did not exist ever existed.

Those same laws exist now. And can be tested. Do you think that physicists just made up the electro-weak theory and said, "That sounds like a good idea" without actually testing it? They actually built a huge whacking great particle accelerator so they could test that theory.

So to apply this to your post, I'm going to point out the places where you did this:1) if the supersymmetry theory is correct....First you are using a questionable theory.2) (gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak) were essentially the same force...Then You draw from it's conclusions to make your point. Which requires the theory to invoke a situation where anything can happen.3) physical characteristics such as mass and charge were essentially meaningless. The energy density of space-time was just too high..... Then your conclusion is based upon a questionable theory.So the flow chart goes like this: First comes a problem that cannot be solved while known natural laws exist-------So come up with a theory that eliminates these conditions so that the problem will be solved (which is invoking a god did it type situation)-----Problem solved theory is now correct. And all known laws had to be broken to do it.

So what is scientific about making situations where what you "want" to be true, can be true? Because if breaking laws to make the natural to work is permitted, then so should be the supernatural.

So basically this is a irony situation where you would have a problem if I claimed the power of God, which breaks natural laws, did something. But yet science will invoke the same situation by claiming certain laws did not exist so that certain things can happen.

Supersymmetry wasn't conjured up out of thin air. It's a model that predicts other particles that we should be able to detect.

I don't believe in a need for a law giver under these circumstances if that answers your question.My point here is that scientific law is different from the legal term which must be laid down. Scientific laws explain what we see.

Things as simple as arithmetic operations qualify as scientific laws.

That still does not answer the question of a natural source. If a natural source cannot be provided then a supernatural source can be pondered. Unless science deems it taboo to ponder such things even though they have zero for evidence of laws coming into existence naturalistically.

That still does not answer the question of a natural source. If a natural source cannot be provided then a supernatural source can be pondered. Unless science deems it taboo to ponder such things even though they have zero for evidence of laws coming into existence naturalistically.

You can see them trying to get it. But, at the same time denying it the whole while.

It's not hard at all to distinguish between the meanings, or more specifically show the correlations and similarities (since you intend to prove there is a difference). But you are skirting the question. And that still is:

Ã¢â‚¬Å“Find me evidence of a Law that wasn't given by a "Law Giver", then we can discuss the point further.Ã¢â‚¬Â

I don't need to until you provide me a law given by a law giver that can't be broken as natural laws can't be. Physical laws merely explain what happens. They don't tell the universe what to do. Do we need a "theorem giver", and "axion giver", a "lemma giver" etc as well???

There are plenty of laws that were discovered by scientists. AmpÃƒÂ¨re's law for example. AmpÃƒÂ¨re didn't decide one day that for any closed loop path, the sum of the length elements times the magnetic field in the direction of the length element is equal to the permeability times the electric current enclosed in the loop. He didn't give us the law, he discovered it for us.

Ampere's law is a needlessly complex. Take the Newtonian definition of force. The derivative of momentum. Where is the need for a law there???

I don't need to until you provide me a law given by a law giver that can't be broken as natural laws can't be. Physical laws merely explain what happens.

Oooh, Oooh, I can play that one too! I don't need to until you provide evidence of a Law that wasn't given by a "Law Giver", then we can discuss the point further.

Oh, and by the way, we bend (or break if you will) Newtonian Gravitational Laws with Aeronautics every day.

They don't tell the universe what to do.

Actually, they do. Much like a computer needs a programmer to give it the parameters within which to work. The Ã¢â‚¬Å“PhysicalÃ¢â‚¬Â Laws are well designed (get it, designed) to govern how things react within the mediums that are applied.

Do we need a "theorem giver", and "axion giver", a "lemma giver" etc as well???

Yes, yes and no. IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll leave the lemmas up to the theistic evolutionists.

Nothing is needlessly complex, unless complexity frightens some. If you wish, you can go with the simpler OhmÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s law. But even the complexity in Ampere's law posits the design of a designer.

That still does not answer the question of a natural source. If a natural source cannot be provided then a supernatural source can be pondered. Unless science deems it taboo to ponder such things even though they have zero for evidence of laws coming into existence naturalistically.

Feel free to ponder as many supernatural sources as you like. Forces have traditionally always had a natural source though. For example, you can create a magnetic force by moving an electric current through a wire.

Can you demonstrate any force that requires its source to be supernatural?

Feel free to ponder as many supernatural sources as you like. Forces have traditionally always had a natural source though. For example, you can create a magnetic force by moving an electric current through a wire.

Can you demonstrate any force that requires its source to be supernatural?

Sure Jason:

Firstly, give your definition of "Supernatural". Is it specific, or is it a generalization of anything metaphysical (i.e. phenomena you cannot test empirically with your five senses).

Secondly, once we have your description or definition of "Supernatural", we can work on the demonstrations.

Feel free to ponder as many supernatural sources as you like. Forces have traditionally always had a natural source though. For example, you can create a magnetic force by moving an electric current through a wire.

Can you demonstrate any force that requires its source to be supernatural?

Sure. Everyday humans (living matter) die. Now if you guys know so well how dead matter comes alive, then those who die in good health you should be able to revive everytime. So what is the force that determines what lives and dies that science cannot overcome? Could it be that when the soul leaves the body life is no longer in it?

Example: A child dies from choking. You get the food out. You do CPR. It's dead matter that used to be alive, right? So why in some instances can you not revive the dead matter?

I mean the Miller experiment supposetly made life from dead matter (what is implied about experiment). By what force does death keep science from bringing back life when be all means they should hsve never died?

And you will probably say: It's to complicated to do. Well life from no life is easy because you guys proved it, or did you?

Sure. Everyday humans (living matter) die. Now if you guys know so well how dead matter comes alive, then those who die in good health you should be able to revive everytime. So what is the force that determines what lives and dies that science cannot overcome? Could it be that when the soul leaves the body life is no longer in it?

Example: A child dies from choking. You get the food out. You do CPR. It's dead matter that used to be alive, right? So why in some instances can you not revive the dead matter?

If the Heimlich maneuver and/or CPR doesn't work to save the patient, hypoxia will kill them in about three and a half minutes. After this time the brain will suffer from necrosis which will prevent the function of the brain being restored. Shortly after this, the rest of the body will die too.

I mean the Miller experiment supposetly made life from dead matter (what is implied about experiment). By what force does death keep science from bringing back life when be all means they should hsve never died?

The Miller experiment made amino acids out of basic inorganic compounds. It didn't make life.

And you will probably say: It's to complicated to do. Well life from no life is easy because you guys proved it, or did you?

So basically you cannot sustain life naturally now can you?

Life is sustained naturally (rather than supernaturally) on life support machines all the time.

If the Heimlich maneuver and/or CPR doesn't work to save the patient, hypoxia will kill them in about three and a half minutes.Ã‚Â After this time the brain will suffer from necrosis which will prevent the function of the brain being restored.Ã‚Â Shortly after this, the rest of the body will die too.The Miller experiment made amino acids out of basic inorganic compounds.Ã‚Â It didn't make life.Life is sustained naturally (rather than supernaturally) on life support machines all the time.

This boy received appropriate medical attention and survived. How is that a miracle?

How is this natural?Ã‚Â And did the machine evolve or was it created?Ã‚Â

It's natural because it doesn't involve praying, sacrificing chickens, or dancing around shaking a gourd. It's just the application of science. Modern medicine has gone a long way to improving the average length of life of human beings. It has nothing to do with the big bang, but if you can show me a force that has to have a supernatural source then I'm all ears.

...but if you can show me a force that has to have a supernatural source then I'm all ears.

Since the source of all forces can't be described naturally then the burden of proof is on you to show us how the source of any force is natural. Could you make us a new force or a new scientific law naturally, so we can see how these things are produced out of nothing by pure naturalistic causes?

That toddler was in freezing cold water.Ã‚Â Extreme cold is known to reduce the metabolism of a body.

Yes, that is true, but did you read the rest of the article? There was alot more to it than that. Take a look what happened even after the toddler was removed from the freezing cold water.

Paramedics were unable to start Oluchi breathing again. A medvac helicopter rushed her to the Royal London hospital where doctors gave her a 2% of surviving.

Ã¢â‚¬Å“For days we were thinking is she going to live or is she going to die.

Doctors were telling us she was never going to pull through.

They said that if she had not started breathing again in six hours she would probably not survive.

Six hours went by and when the doctors discussed turning off the machine we asked them to hold on.

Three days later my daughter suddenly started breathing again.

The doctors said she would never pass urine again because her kidney failed. But she is passing urine normally now.

They said she would not be able to talk anymore, she would not walk again - she would be a vegetable.

But she is walking, she is eating normally and she is able to say what she wants.

That woman was constantly being resuscitated.Ã‚Â The extra medical care that she received may have also had something to do with her recovery.

There were constant attempts at resusitating her by her husband. She had been clinically dead for 15 minutes. There was no pulse, no heart beat and no oxygen to the brain in that time. Read quote below:

The usual result, even for those patients who survive such a prolonged period without a heartbeat, would be life in a vegetative state.

This boy received appropriate medical attention and survived. Ã‚Â How is that a miracle?

Before the boy had received appropriate medical attention, he had been without oxygen for a double the time that irreversible brain damage would (should) have already occured. Again, read below:

Dr. Jim Hayes was working in the emergency room at Martin Memorial Medical Center when the blond-haired boy was brought in that morning, apparently none the worse for having been without oxygen for double the time it normally takes to cause irreversible brain damage.
Ã¢â‚¬Å“I told everyone then it was a miracle,Ã¢â‚¬Â Hayes said.

It's natural because it doesn't involve praying, sacrificing chickens, or dancing around shaking a gourd. Ã‚Â It's just the application of science. Ã‚Â Modern medicine has gone a long way to improving the average length of life of human beings. Ã‚Â It has nothing to do with the big bang, but if you can show me a force that has to have a supernatural source then I'm all ears.

What you're talking about is an artificial (though wonderful) machine that has been designed/created to help towards keeping a person alive. However, no such machine is miraculous in creating life itself, or bringing back the dead. No such machine is "natural".

There's nothing "unnatural" about praying! Especially in trying situations. Though the results themselves may prove miraculous and even defy medical or scientific explanation in some situations, the act of prayer is perfectly natural.

Many creation believing scientists/medical men have been a great part of science/medical breakthroughs throughout history. It isn't an issue attributing the "natural" to a God that created nature. It's actually quite...natural. It is in fact wonderful to be able to observe his handiwork on a daily basis.

I'm unsure how I can show you a force itself, but the effects of such a force at work is another story. If one however refuses to acknowlege or accept those effects as ever being a result of a designer (or miraculous intervention by such a designer) (even if the doctors themselves are baffled), then perhaps it's not possible afterall. To those who do not believe, so often, no explanation is possible.

The power of prayer by the way is well known in medical situations. I've not heard of sacrificing chickens as having any results, or dancing around shaking a gourd.

Yes, that is true, but did you read the rest of the article? There was alot more to it than that.Ã‚Â Take a look what happened even after the toddler was removed from the freezing cold water.

There were constant attempts at resusitating her by her husband.Ã‚Â She had been clinically dead for 15 minutes.Ã‚Â There was no pulse, no heart beat and no oxygen to the brain in that time.Ã‚Â Read quote below:

This boy received appropriate medical attention and survived. Ã‚Â How is that a miracle?

Before the boy had received appropriate medical attention, he had been without oxygen for a double the time that irreversible brain damage would (should) have already occured.Ã‚Â Again, read below:

Dr. Jim Hayes was working in the emergency room at Martin Memorial Medical Center when the blond-haired boy was brought in that morning, apparently none the worse for having been without oxygen for double the time it normally takes to cause irreversible brain damage.
Ã¢â‚¬Å“I told everyone then it was a miracle,Ã¢â‚¬Â Hayes said.

It's natural because it doesn't involve praying, sacrificing chickens, or dancing around shaking a gourd. Ã‚Â It's just the application of science. Ã‚Â Modern medicine has gone a long way to improving the average length of life of human beings. Ã‚Â It has nothing to do with the big bang, but if you can show me a force that has to have a supernatural source then I'm all ears.

What you're talking about is an artificial (though wonderful) machine that has been designed/created to help towards keeping a person alive.Ã‚Â However, no such machine is miraculous in creating life itself, or bringing back the dead.Ã‚Â No such machine is "natural".

There's nothing "unnatural" about praying!Ã‚Â Especially in trying situations.Ã‚Â Though the results themselves may prove miraculous and even defy medical or scientific explanation in some situations, the act of prayer is perfectly natural.

Many creation believing scientists/medical men have been a great part of science/medical breakthroughs throughout history.Ã‚Â It isn't an issue attributing the "natural" to a God that created nature.Ã‚Â It's actually quite...natural.Ã‚Â It is in fact wonderful to be able to observe his handiwork on a daily basis.

I'm unsure how I can show you a force itself, but the effects of such a force at work is another story.Ã‚Â If one however refuses to acknowlege or accept those effects as ever being a result of a designerÃ‚Â (or miraculous intervention by such a designer) (even if the doctors themselves are baffled), then perhaps it's not possible afterall.Ã‚Â To those who do not believe, so often, no explanation is possible.

The power of prayer by the way is well known in medical situations.Ã‚Â I've not heard of sacrificing chickens as having any results, or dancing around shaking a gourd.

Bex,

This is clearly a case of a materialist NOT wanting to believe the facts. So the question then becomes; "Why does the materialist NOT want to believe the facts?"

This is clearly a case of a materialist NOT wanting to believe the facts. So the question then becomes; "Why does the materialist NOT want to believe the facts?"

Hi De Skudd,

This is why it is often not possible to present anything that points in the direction of the miraculous or possible supernatural intervention that may go above and beyond medical abilities/explanations. Because it's denied regardless of what's presented.

Yet on the next hand, such people often request evidence that this kind of stuff happens.....

This is why it is often not possible to present anything that points in the direction of the miraculous or possible supernatural intervention that may go above and beyond medical abilities/explanations. Because it's denied regardless of what's presented.

Yet on the next hand, such people often request evidence that this kind of stuff happens.....

We reject the possibility of miracles... now show us the evidence for miracles.